Marcellus Shale gas exploration and drilling must continue. The gas trapped deep underground has the potential to help move the nation toward energy independence.

That said, it’s also important that the exploration, and the drilling and operation of wells, be done with utmost safety, environmental and community considerations in place.

Marcellus Shale gas development is in its early stages, so it’s necessary that dialogue and debate, not only on the state level but also on the local level, be vigorous. There’s too much at stake for Marcellus Shale gas extraction to be conducted haphazardly or dangerously.

People who might be faced with Marcellus Shale drilling near their neighborhoods or homes must have assurance that they will not be harmed.

It’s important that myths and the facts be sorted out.

Communities and the public deserve that; drillers and government agencies have the responsibility to be open and responsive to that.

The extraction of Marcellus Shale gas, issues surrounding the process, and reports already surfacing of problems related to the extraction are rightly commanding more news coverage. All reputable news organizations have the responsibility to follow and report on the story so people will be informed.

The determination to provide that coverage is not based on a desire for sensationalism but, instead, on the obligation to keep the public informed with balanced coverage. It must be coverage that reveals the negatives as well as the positives.

Responsible news organizations are not public relations arms for one side of the Marcellus Shale or any other issue.

Thus, Butler School Board member John Conrad, reacting to the board’s consideration of a gas lease agreement involving the properties of the Summit Township and Connoquenessing elementary schools, was off-base when contending that “this (Marcellus Shale) issue has been sensationalized to sell newspapers or airtime.”

Selling newspapers and increasing viewership is not the goal of Marcellus Shale reporting. News organizations would be irresponsible if they looked the other way.

People have a right to be concerned about whether their property values will be destroyed by nearby Marcellus drilling, whether nearby around-the-clock drilling operations will prevent them from getting sleep at night, whether their streets or roads will be damaged and, in the case of those whose water comes from wells, not municipal water systems, whether their water tables will be destroyed and their wells rendered useless.

The prospect of prolonged haggling — or long-running court cases — between municipalities and drillers about who is responsible for what percentage of severely damaged roads or other community facilities cannot be relished by taxpayers.

Finally, people who have invested much and, in some cases their life’s savings, to have the home that they desired should not have that investment’s value harmed by drill-ers’ and owners of nearby tracts of lands’ desire to make as much money as they can.

Contrary to Conrad’s narrow opinion, all those things are being factored into Marcellus Shale coverage. It’s not about senationalism, but instead about the public’s right — and need — to know.

Decisions regarding Marcellus Shale — and the undeniable necessity for it to go forward — should take such considerations into account. Those who now are asking tough questions aren’t stupid or overreacting, but instead are demonstrating the kind of public and municipal involvement that the issue deserves.

Conrad should respect any window for such discussion.